Sand in the bull's eye.

This is the ancient battle of rhetoric, after all. It's an amazingly effective approach to anything. Instead of addressing what is being asked of you, you throw sand in the question and point out something else entirely, thus redirecting the course of discussion.

Take, for instance, the pounding assertion that Kerry doesn't have "strong convictions." Which, is to some extent, what I've heard repeated ad nauseum by the mainstream media. That somehow, someone who is paid $400,000 a year to ostensibly represent a diverse constituency of 300 million individuals ought to have "strong convictions." The only strong conviction that I think someone who is a paid representative of me and the rest of the country I live in shoud be is that he actually listens to the concerns and strong convictions of those that he represents. And then weighs, appropriately, the course of action to take. It's not that this country isn't brimming with thoughtful ideas and public policy matrons who can wonk with the wonkiest out there; rather, it's that we have people who lead with all too strong convictions of what is right and what is wrong and don't have the patience, wherewithal, or true leadership skills to even listen to what else might be out there. Dogmatic inflexibility is not a leadership skill, though it may seem like strong convictions at times, which sounds so much more positive when you listen to it. It's practically mellifluous.

Strong convictions, decisive actions. These are nice traits to have. But I don't see where they've gotten us, except in a whole mess of trouble, in a world that we've created through headstrong actions that haven't been properly thought out. It'd be nice to meet someone who actually listens for a change. And then see what happens when we lead, and the leaders do, in fact, follow.